Writing in a Different Language. The Example of Charles Sealsfield

The unique circumstance of writers shifting from their native
language to that of a host country has been a neglected topic,
most probably because it involves but a miniscule number of authors.
After all, what author is going to change language unless there
is an absolutely compelling reason to do so. Thus, this situation
occurs only as the result of special conditions, specifically
through relocation to a new country either through voluntary emigration
or through involuntary flight into exile to escape political or
religious persecution. But the matter of emigration or exile alone
is still not sufficient to cause or to explain the adoption of
the language of the host country for their writings. With very
few exceptions the vast majority of writers who were forced into
exile and fled to America, Canada, England, Mexico, South America
and China continued to write in their own language and had their
works translated into English or other languages. They held on
to their own native language, because they lived for the day when
they would be able to return to their homeland and resume their
literary careers there. They wanted to preserve not only their
language, but also their identity, which is connected to the language.
Some, like Stefan Zweig, tried to minimize the use of English
in order not to harm their command of German. It can therefore
be seen, that what is required in addition to physical presence
in a new country is the writer's conscious decision to cut all
ties to his native land and to adopt wholeheartedly the language,
culture and Weltanschauung of the new country. For the new language
brings with it a new way of thinking and a new identity.

Few writers have successfully accomplished this transition
to mastery of a new language to the point of being able to successfully
publish literary works in it, and those who have done so are primarily
secondary authors of popular or trivial literature or of autobiographies.
For that reason, scholars have for the most part ignored the writings
of those few who have demonstrated such prowess. One major exception
in English literature is Joseph Conrad, a rare case of a foreign
author being canonized in another literature. Usually émigré
or exiled authors publish only a few books in English, and consequently
they are not taken into the literary canon of the host country.
For its part, German-language literary scholarship bases its research
on the German versions and pays scant attention to the fact that
the original appeared in English. As a result, these works written
in English tend to fall between the cracks of literary history
of both countries, and the remarkable phenomenon of authors changing
language and possibly identity has never received the attention
that it merits.

However, this unique situation takes on new interest in an
age of the European Union, which will permit free movement of
people between member countries, and beyond that of globalization.
The changes resulting from this move toward greater unification,
first of Europe and then of the world, will unquestionably result
in a greatly increased relocation of people in Europe and in the
world, as it becomes possible for more people move about freely
to seek greater opportunities. More writers may also join the
movement, creating the possibility that this circumstance of writing
in another language may become more frequent. Even if this should
not be the case, this neglected topic presents itself a fascinating
aspect of literary history, and the remarkable success of the
historical examples that exist make the topic well worth investigating
and knowing, as I hope to show in the following.

I intend to investigate this unique situation in terms of the
19-century Austrian writer Karl Anton Postl, who achieved considerable
success with books written in English under the pseudonym of Charles
Sealsfield. He serves as representative of other Austrians who
wrote in English such as, to name a few, Vicki Baum, Joseph Fabry,
Hans Flesch-Brunnigen, Anne Gmeyner, Gina Kaus, Max Knight, Robert
Neumann, Salka Viertel, Joseph Wechsberg, Richard Weininger and
finally the well-known Billy Wilder, who wrote academy-award winning
films.(1) My approach will be to examine Sealsfield
from four aspects that would fit all of the other authors as well:
1.The circumstances of his abandoning his native land to seek
a life in the U.S.; 2. the motivation for his decision to write
in English; 3.the nature of his topics and the popular success
of his works, as documented by their critical reception.

Charles Sealsfield - born in Poppitz, Czechoslovakia in 1793,
died in Solothurn Switzerland in 1864 - was the renegade monk
Karl Anton Postl, who, chafing under the rigid authority of the
Catholic Church and the repressiveness of Austria under Emperor
Franz I and his minister Metternich, broke his vows to the Kreuzherren
in Prague and fled to America in 1823 to find freedom and a new
life of independence. His trip carried him to
New Orleans rather than the more usual port of entry in New York,
because he was aided in his flight by the Freemasons, who chose
the location because they were had strong presence and representation
there. In return for their financial assistance and support, he
was required to disappear as Karl Postl, assume a new identity
and above all promise never to reveal his true identity during
his lifetime.(2)

Charles Sealsfield, the name he finally adopted,(3)
kept this vow, which explains why he became characterized as "The
Great Unknown."(4) In many ways this description remains appropriate, for he remained
secretive and reclusive, and many areas of his life are still
shrouded in darkness, despite the abundance of secondary literature
written about him.(5) These commentaries are
filled with contradictory interpretations. People who knew him
in Switzerland all report that he had something mysterious about
him, the reason he could not ever persuade any woman to marry
him. Initially he changed his name several times, beginning with
C. Sidons, and invented a number of fictional identities and stories
about his past to throw off any police pursuit. However, when
he began publishing his books he used Charles Sealsfield, the
name that appeared on his American passport and the one he retained
for the rest of his life and beyond - the legend on his gravestone
in Solothurn reads Charles Sealsfield, Bürger der Vereinigten
Staaten.

Sealsfield harbored no aspirations of ever returning to Austria
and thus devoted himself to mastering English, while immersing
himself in American life, politics and culture. He had been an
excellent student at the University of Prague and learned fluent
French and possibly a smattering of English, the secondary sources
differ on this point. More importantly, as a student of Bernhard
Bolzano, who was eventually dismissed because of his independent
thinking and teaching, Sealsfield for the first time heard expressed
ideas of freedom of thought and action which reinforced his own
feelings and ideas. In America Sealsfield was immediately smitten
by the spirit of democracy and particularly by the politics of
Andrew Jackson, whose ardent supporter he became. Jackson's election
to the presidency in 1828 first brought the American West to prominence
over the old-line Eastern political machine, thus launching a
new era in American politics. In the U.S., which politically and
socially was the opposite of Austria in every respect, Sealsfield
was not entering an unfamiliar country; rather he found himself
finally in the land that corresponded to his basic nature, spirit
and thinking, and he embraced it wholeheartedly and enthusiastically.

In the first five years Sealsfield traveled the U.S. from North
to South, observing the variations of life in the different parts
of the country that he visited. How he supported his travels is
one of the dark areas. He makes vague mention of business dealings,
but it seems most likely that he continued to be financially supported
by the Freemasons. His life story, which we cannot further elaborate
here, is an incredible tale equal to anything that he created
in fiction. Among other things, he offered Metternich his services
as a spy while he was visiting England in 1827, but his proposal
was not accepted. From 1830 to 1848 he worked as a publicist for
ex-king Joseph Bonaparte.

Sealsfield was not at all attracted to New York and the Eastern
seaboard, which had its own form of wealthy aristocracy, but rather
became fascinated by the American frontier, which corresponded
to his ideas of total personal freedom. He explored the Mississippi
Valley, Louisiana and also Texas even before it had become a State.
Curiously, his interest never turned to the far West, most likely
because it did not become a focus of attention until the 1840s,
when California achieved statehood and the gold rush of 1848 began.
By then Sealsfield had already moved back to Europe. Even though
during his many years in Europe he wrote all of his works in German,
he continued to use American themes almost exclusively and continued
to praise the American utopia enthusiastically. In short, throughout
his career he remained an American author - in German.

In the remarkably short period of four years after his arrival
in the U.S., Sealsfield could publish his first book in English,
entitled The United States of North America as they are in
their political, religious and social relations (1827). The
book shows not only his acquired facility in English, which he
had lacked upon arrival, but also his excellent powers of observation,
as demonstrated by his comprehensive portrayal and insightful
views of the U.S., the result of his extensive travels and reading.
Sealsfield had intended his book to enlighten the British about
life, culture, politics and business in the U.S. It was important
to him to find an English publisher, because he felt that he would
not be accepted as an author in America until he found success
and a seal of approval in England. So important was English publication
that he traveled to London in 1826 to oversee the arrangements
personally. From there he also contacted Cotta to arrange for
a German version, because he felt that the book would also provide
useful information about life and conditions in a democratic country
to Germany and especially to repressive Austria.

How much a reader at the publishing house or possibly a friend
may have contributed to polishing the language is a question impossible
to answer. As far as is known, the only one to proofread the book
was Sealsfield himself. His publisher, John Murray, had insisted
that the author remain in London for that task, even
though Sealsfield had wanted to return sooner to the U.S. Even
so, the English is far from perfect, and Murray was certainly
negligent in letting it appear with so many errors. Reviewers
were quick to identify the author as someone with a German-language
background.(6)

Sealsfield's command of English has been a subject of debate
in the library of publications devoted to this enigmatic, controversial
author.(7) Karl J. R. Arndt, who devoted many
years of his life trying to document the life of the elusive Sealsfield
and who has made the most detailed examination of Sealsfield's
English,(8) states that the
descriptions of Sealsfield sent out by the Austrian police in
1823 did not mention any knowledge of English.(9)
Even if he knew some English when he arrived in America, the fluency
and the cultivated literary style he achieved in four years is
remarkable. Arndt also notes that no direct statements of English
or American critics who knew Sealsfield personally have been found.
He has, however, been able to present three pieces of evidence
to support the idea that by 1827 Sealsfield
was proficient in English. The first is that Sealsfield's book
was published by the leading publishing firms in England and America.(10) Secondly, an editor printed a
notice in the New Mirror, stating: "Sealsfield is
a good writer and while in this country contributed some excellent
articles to the New York Mirror."(11)
Thirdly, there is a letter of Major M. M. Noah, who received many
political honors and who founded several newspapers and journals,
to General G. P. Morris, the editor of the New Mirror, in
which Noah claims to have met in 1832 a tall
, genteel-looking German, who spoke good English. Later in the
letter he states that his visitor wrote in English exceedingly
well but for a paper of intense interest he preferred German.(12) Unless new information surfaces - the scholarship
is divided on whether Sealsfield burned his papers or whether
they were hidden and have not yet been found - Noah's letter will
be the most direct testimony we have. Personally I find the imperfections
of the English rather charming and never an interference with
the comprehension of the text. It seems to go with the frontier
subject matter. In any event the language did
not prevent the enthusiastic reception of these books in England
and America as well as in Germany, where they were widely reviewed
and hotly debated.(13) Certainly in reading
these works, one encounters Germanisms, misspellings, wrong use
of prepositions, dangling relative clauses and incorrect punctuation,
among other mistakes. But none of these errors obscures the meaning
or disturbs the flow of the narrative. If a knowledgeable reader
had gone over these texts, these errors would certainly have been
eliminated, reinforcing the idea that only Sealsfield proofread
the book. Ultimately, like so many aspects of Sealsfield's life
and career, this matter of his knowledge of English will remain
impossible to decide unless some new evidence can be found.

Sealsfield had in fact written the book for the purpose of
enlightening the British about life, culture, politics and business
in the U.S. He felt that accounts by British travelers were biased,
and he wanted to present a more objective and accurate description.
The German version, also published by Cotta the same year, was
likewise designed to spread this information about the free, independent
life in a democratic country to Germany and especially to politically
repressed Austria. Naturally the book was banned in his homeland,
but it was circulated and read there nevertheless.

In 1828 Murray published Sealsfield's second work in English:
Austria as it is or Sketches of Continental Courts. By an Eye
Witness. This time, however, the book appeared anonymously,
which gave reviewers a field day speculating
about the author. Opinions ranged widely from the author being
an Austrian nobleman, possibly educated in England, to an English
aristocrat.(14) Sealsfield's illuminating dissection
of the tyrannical, repressive conditions in the Austrian absolutist
state was harshly critical but fair-minded reporting, revealing
the lack of freedom of speech, the police spying on everyone,
including visitors and all of the other ills of an early version
of a fascist government. The reaction of reviewers depended upon
their political orientation. On the whole, however, the book,
which did not appear in a German version until 1919, was another
great success in both England and America. Concerning the language,
one favorable reviewer suggested a second edition to clear the
text of grammatical errors and foreign idioms.(15)Another praises the
book, declaring: "There is much information in a small compass,
without verbosity; the style is pleasant; and the work altogether
of an agreeable and superior character. It deserves to be popular."(16) The book, which still remains a seminal text
for understanding the Austrian Vormärz, may have appealed
more to British than to American readers, whose democratic political
system and society had long since broken with court life and all
of the other oppressions of a despotic state, of which Austria
served as a model until the overthrow of the government of Metternich
and Emperor Ferdinand in the revolution of 1848.

Also in 1828 Sealsfield published an addendum to his first
book, entitled The Americans asthey are. Described
in a Tour through the Valley of the Mississippi. It is an
indication of the success of the preceding book that this new
work was advertised as by the author of Austria as it is.
In this work, in addition to demonstrating once again his powers
of observation, Sealsfield also revealed his natural bent for
colorful description. This quality gained him
a reputation in the U.S. as one of the earliest of the group of
writers who came to be known as local colorists.(17)
These were generally people who were not professional writers
but who possessed the ability to capture the spirit and environment
of pioneer life on the frontier and bring it alive for the reader.
To anticipate and ward off criticism of the language, an advertisement
for Sealsfield's new book carries the caveat, that the author
"is far from claiming for his work any sort of literary merit.
Truth and practical observation are his chief
points. Whether his opinions and statements are correct, it remains
for the reader to judge, and experience to confirm."(18)

In general, most reviews of Sealsfield's writings praise his
talent for description. The frontier, which was usually lawless
and dangerous, which lacked any amenities of civilization, and
which provided individual freedom but demanded total self-reliance,
was the world that fascinated Sealsfield, and it became the subject
of most of his works. It was a world that he knew well both at
first hand on the basis of his travels and through his readings
about it. In 1828 he returned to the Southwest again after spending
an interval in Kittaning on the Pennsylvania frontier. He attempted
to establish a plantation, a model of life that he admired from
his readings about the South, but despite his efforts for four
years, the project failed. The experience, however, provided him
with the intimate knowledge of the people and the life on the
frontier, which he was able to transform into highly readable
accounts that were enormously popular both in the U.S. and throughout
Europe. He was one of the earliest Western writers in America
and was acknowledged by American reviewers and in histories of
American literature as such. Robert E. Spiller, for example, points
out Sealsfield's importance in transforming the novel in America,
in that he does not follow the traditional method of using an
individual as the hero. Rather in his "ethnographic"
novels, the hero is the whole people: "The
characters are typical shapers of the new republic, frontiersmen
and pioneers. They are portraits, Sealsfield insisted, from life,
and they move against a background of magnificent scenery described
in realistic detail."(19)
The ambitious aims of The Americans as they are Sealsfield
describes as follows:

[...] to exhibit to the eyes of the European world, the
real state of American affairs, divested of all prejudice, and
all party spirit; [...] to show the state of society in
general, and the relative bearings of the different classes to
each other, and thus afford a clear idea of what the United States
really are; [...] to represent social intercourse and
prevailing habits in such a manner as to enable the future emigrant
to follow the prescribed track, and to settle with security and
advantage to himself and to his new country; to afford him the
means of judging for himself, by giving
him a complete view of public and private life in general, as
well as of each profession or business in particular [...].(20)

Sealsfield's grasp of American life in all of its important
aspects after only five years in the country can only put to shame
the average American, who can live here all of his or her life
and never achieve such a comprehensive view. It is likely that
that admission is implicit in the popularity of these works in
the U.S., although they were intended for a foreign audience.
There is an enormous difference between Sealsfield's informed
commentaries, based on personal observations and extensive reading,
and the distorted superficial travelogues of visitors who spent
limited time in one location, a situation that still occurs today.
Most critics hail Sealsfield as the forerunner of de Tocqueville.

Sealsfield became thoroughly Americanized, and his views were
all mainstream American, coinciding with those of others who wrote about the Western frontier.(21)
His own biases show through, in that he praised independence of
thought and the courageous, adventurous pioneer spirit, while
criticizing what he called the decadent Eastern aristocrats, symbolized
by John Quincy Adams. He also attacked the authoritarian Catholic
Church at every opportunity and praised Southern plantation life,
which he had tried to emulate. His admiration of the plantation
placed him in a dilemma, for it brought his belief in the democratic
ideal of freedom of the individual into conflict with the practice
of slavery. He never liked slavery but rationalized the practice
with the argument that no whites could work in the hot humid conditions
of the South. Thus the slaves were necessary, since they suffered
no ill effects. The problem would eventually be resolved, he felt,
by preparing the slaves for emancipation and compensating the
owners for their loss. In the interim the government should pass
a law, requiring that they be treated with humanity.21 To all
intents and purposes Sealsfield, who had had to create a new identity
as an American with his own particular linguistic usage and narrative
style, had successfully transformed himself into an American writer
and was completely accepted as such by publishers, reviewers and
public alike.

The highpoint of his writings in English was the novel Tokea
or The White Rose (1829), which proved simultaneously to be
his most popular work and a critical success that propelled him
to the forefront of American writers of that day as well as, ironically,
the book that caused him to reassess his writing in English and
his life in America and cause him to return to Europe and the
German language. It is easy to see why the reviewers of the time
waxed so enthusiastic over this work, for it is good read. It
abounds in complicated plot twists that all come together at the
end to form a harmonious whole, narrated in colorful, picturesque
style that captures the rough and raw life on the frontier in
upper Louisiana.

Tokeah is the proud chief of the Oconee Indians, who have been
displaced by the advancing whites. He devotes his life to protecting
his band against further encroachment, until at the end he and
the surviving members of the tribe have to retreat again. His
death at the end, while he is trying to rescue the bones of his
parents from the plows of the encroaching white farmers, is a
foreboding that there will soon be no place for the Indians and
their tribal customs. Tokeah's son-in-law, Tecumseh, chief of
the Commanches, may bring about an accommodation to the new reality
and try to make peace with the whites, but Sealsfield is not optimistic.
The novel makes clear that they have to stop fighting the whites
and find an accommodation with them or they will not survive,
for there is no stopping the westward expansion. While Sealsfield
admires the Indians and their culture and sympathizes with the
plight of their repeated displacement, at the same time he regards
it as the inevitable "Manifest Destiny" of the whites
to control the country from coast to coast. It is almost tantamount
to the philosophy that those who can make the best use of the
land shall possess it. Sealsfield makes this position clear in
a conversation between Tokeah and General Stonewall Jackson:

Chief, said the general, not without vehemence, the Great
Spirit has made the lands for the white men, and for the red
men, that they may live on the fruits which grow on the earth,
and dig the soil, and plough the ground; but not for hunting
grounds, that some thousands of red men may find deer where millions
of people might live peacefully.(22)

As a result the Indians had to make way for the inexorable
march west, which exhibited the power of the American spirit and
would enable the country to grow into the world power it was destined
to become, while decadent Europe declined.

On the whole Sealsfield, possibly influenced by Chateaubriand,
portrays the Indians in favorable terms as "noble savages."
At the same time he held the view that the Indians can never amount
to anything because they do not respect women:

A people, with whom woman is not justly respected, will
always be found more or less barbarous; and the estimation of
woman, her rank and station as a member of the commonwealth,
are perhaps the surest standard by which to ascertain the claim
of each nation to real civilization.(23)

The main woman in the novel is The White Rose, a white girl,
who was taken as a baby by Tokeah during an attack on white people
in which her mother was killed. He leaves her with a white family
for seven years and then reclaims her to live with the tribe for
another seven years. Everyone senses that this extraordinarily
beautiful girl is a special person, and she leads a privileged
life, protected by Tokeah and his daughter Canondah and spared
the usual work and drudgery of Indian women.

Enter Sir Arthur Graham, a young, aristocratic Englishman,
who has been captured with his family by the pirate Jean Lafitte
but has escaped into the swamps. He is bitten by an alligator
and found by Rose and Canondah. They hide him and restore him
to health. He and Rose fall in love, but he must leave to try
to rescue his family. Tokeah provides a runner to show him the
way to his people, who are in New Orleans making ready to fight
against the Americans for control of New Orleans.

On his way Arthur, who is dressed as an Indian, is captured
by the Americans, who want to shoot him as a British spy. He cannot
say why he is dressed as he is, because he has given his word
of honor to Tokeah not to reveal the location of his tribe. While
awaiting his trial, there is ample opportunity for lengthy discussions
with the judge about the qualities of the American versus the
English political and social systems. The judge and his wife happen
to be the family with whom Tokeah had left Rose 14 years earlier.
They still have the possessions that she had with her, and an
amulet containing a picture of an aristocrat convinces Arthur
that she is of noble birth.

Arthur is transferred to the home of a Senator, a Southern
plantation owner, engendering more conversations about the superiority
of the American democratic government over the British Monarchy
and about the positive benefits of America as melting pot. The
Senator must take Arthur to New Orleans to see the general, who
is drawing up plans to defend the city against a superior British
force in what became the famous Battle of 1812. Stonewall Jackson's
victory over a superior British force launched him to political
fame and eventually to the presidency. The busy general does not
believe Arthur's story and orders him shot.

Just then Tokeah arrives, with the pirate Jean Lafitte as his
prisoner. Lafitte had been trying to persuade Tokeah to join forces
with him and to seal the bargain by giving him Canondah. When
the Indian refuses, Lafitte attacks that night and Canondah is
killed. Lafitte is captured and Tokeah has traveled for days by
canoe down the Mississippi to turn him over to General Jackson
personally to gain good will. Rose is accompanying him. Once the
Indian releases Arthur from his word of honor and also testifies
about his good behavior and character, Arthur is released and,
in gentlemanly fashion, escorted across the river, so that he
can join his own people on the other side.

Tokeah returns north to lead his tribe to new lands away from
the whites and finds his honorable demise at the hands of an enemy
tribe of Pawnees. Tucumseh, chief of the Commanches will now lead
the tribe. Lafitte kills his guards and escapes, never to appear
again, while Rose and Arthur are married and travel to England.At
the end they are visiting his aunt in Jamaica, when a Spanish
aristocrat, Don Juan, Chevalier D'Aranza, Count de Montgomez,
who has lost his way, stops by to ask directions. He is invited
to stay overnight. In their discussions he turns out to be Rose's
father. Even Dick Gloom, the rough and ready frontiersman, who
took a dislike to the gentleman Arthur and wanted to hang him,
has married and become a decent, docile member of society. Happy
end for all but the Indians.

This skeletal summary hardly does justice to the richness of
the novel in plot, detailed portrayal of Indian life, and the
skillful portraiture of the contrasting types of Indians, Americans
and English. The nature descriptions, at which Sealsfield excelled,
show his gift for providing local color. All in all, this novel
was an amazing literary debut of an extremely talented narrative
writer. Sealsfield had always been an avid reader and was in particular
a fan of the historical novels of Sir Walter Scott. In addition,
he had studied the works books of Chateaubriand, James Fenimore
Cooper and Timothy Flint, among others, and was not above borrowing.
For example, like Cooper, Sealsfield provides a lengthy, detailed
description of how Indians constructed a birch bark canoe, even
though there were no birch trees where the Oconees lived. At the
same time American writers borrowed freely from Sealsfield.(24)
The reception accorded this novel could hardly have been more
enthusiastic than it was. It was praised by most reviewers and
was called the novel of the year 1829 by some. Sealsfield himself
was lauded as a new American writer, indeed, as the greatest American
author, surpassing James Fenimore Cooper'sThe
Last of the Mohicans with his novel of Indian life.(25)
Since Karl J. R. Arndt, who devoted much of his life and career
to Sealsfield, particularly to his life in America, and who edited
the 32-volume set of his works, has discussed the reception and
the language of this novel in detail, a few examples will suffice
here.

The novel we have named (Tokeah) is purely American, and
we venture to say that in the delineation of Indian character,
habits, ceremonies, etc. it has rarely been surpassed and seldom
equaled. The same skill is exhibited in depicting the singularly original manner and pursuits of
the early settlers on the frontier - a race of men who are not
less remarkable than the Aborigines for bodily strength, patience,
and courage.(26)

One review begins by asking: "Is Mr. Cooper to have a
Rival, or has a greater than Cooper arisen?"(27)Another concludes: "Tokeah is altogether
a most delightful book, and a credit to our literature."(28) Sealsfield, who had been praised as equaling
Cooper in his own language and country, justifiably could feel
that he was achieving his dream to become an American author in
English.

The dream ended abruptly in 1829, when a negative review appeared,
denouncing the book: "The story is too tame to be made endurable
in the hands of even the most accomplished writer; but when told
in language so commonplace and rude, copiously
interspersed with oaths, and other positive vulgarisms equally
offensive, its author must expect no better fate for it."(29) It is nothing short of amazing, when one considers
everything Sealsfield had experienced to reach this point in his
life and the literary success he had enjoyed with his three books
in English, that this one review could dash all of his aspirations
and so rapidly and radically change the course of his life. Up
to that point he had enjoyed many glowing reviews, and as a sign
of envy, the hostility of Cooper, the bitterness of Edgar Allen
Poe and Nathanial Hawthorne, who disliked seeing a foreigner intrude
on their literary territory with such success, and the praise
of Longfellow, whose Evangeline was influenced by Tokeah.
The first three writers considered Sealsfield serious competition
and expressed their anger at the praise given to him, because
they felt it came at the expense of the real American authors.

The hostile review, obviously written by a smug, self-satisfied
religious bigot, is typical of many reviews even today, airing
the prejudices of the reviewer rather than objectively discussing
the book. That the novel is too tame is a subjective matter for
the individual reader to decide, and considering the sales, many
decided otherwise. To condemn the novel for containing vulgarisms
is simply not true. Since Sealsfield was trying to convey realistically
the language of the frontier, he did use some uncouth language
such as an uneducated frontiersman like Dick Gloom. But at worst
he used the words damn or damned, which are not spelled out but
are indicated by the first and last letters with dashes in between.
On the whole the language is elevated, even in the speeches of
the Indians. The reviewer completely overlooks the many errors
in the language in his religious zeal against what he calls vulgarity.
Arndt, who has made a detailed study of the language of the novel,
states: "Sealsfield's English, or American, prose does not
meet the norm of good, acceptable twentieth,
or even nineteenth-century literary English."(30)
He lists as reasons for this, among others, that Sealsfield lacked
sufficient knowledge of English, that the typesetters could not
always read his manuscripts and were not inclined to improve his
spelling, and that neither Sealsfield nor anyone else read the
proofs. That Sealsfield's English could be brought to a satisfactory
level can be seen in The Americans as They Are, where the
language is totally acceptable. Arndt concludes his discussion
of the language with a 12-page list of all incorrect usages.(31) This painstaking compilation would be extremely
useful, should anyone ever decide to reissue the novel.

In the light of all the glowing reviews and the genuine popularity
of his novel with readers as judged by sales, it is unbelievable
that this one patently unfair review could break Sealsfield's
spirit and cause him to relinquish his aspiration to become an
American and an American writer. He was much too tough and independent-minded
for that. Other factors, not yet clarified, had to play a much
greater role in that sudden and radical decision to forego writing
any more works in English and to move back to Europe. Like so
many areas of his life, this major turning point is shrouded in
mystery; Sealsfield never provided any explanation for his sudden
decision to stop writing in English and to move back to Europe.
Possible contributing factors might have been the fact that he
lost his plantation after he invested four years of work without
being able to make it pay. There is also the possibility that
his relationship to his American publisher had changed, causing
uncertainty about future works. But there were many other publishers,
and that review did not prevent him from publishing Tokeah
in London under the revised title of The IndianChief
(1829). He also revised the novel and published it in Switzerland
under the title Der Legitime und der Republikaner (1833)
to focus it more on the political and social issues.

For the next several years Sealsfield worked for a few German-American
newspapers as the London and Paris correspondent, until in 1832
he settled in Solothurn, Switzerland, with an identity as an American
writer. It was there that he really began his career as an American
author - in German. He continued to turn out popular books dealing
with the American Western frontier, for which he never lost his
fascination, and had the works translated into English in the
normal fashion. As a result he is mentioned in American literary
histories of the 19th century as one of the earliest significant
Western and ethnic writers, but he has not achieved the place
in canon of American literature that he would have merited, had
he stayed in the U.S. and continued to write in English. His most
important later book is Das Kajuttenbuch (1844), which
is considered the first of the many Texas novels. Sealsfield continued
to glorify the American West with its pioneer spirit as well as
American democracy, progressiveness and institutions in an effort
to convert Europe to new thinking. All of his books are about
America or Mexico. He achieved incredible popularity in German-speaking
countries as well as in the U.S. and England, and his books brought
him fame and some fortune, only in a different way than he had
expected when he started his literary career.

Because his identity and authorship were not definitively established,
Sealsfield's works were published in large pirated editions without
acknowledgement or royalties to him,(32) a form
of back-handed tribute to the popularity of his writings. The
works were also pirated in America and in France, and in a bizarre
twist the French unauthorized versions were retranslated back
into German. In England Blackwell published translations in fascicles
until the book was completed and then as a bound work. In self-defense
Sealsfield finally had to publish his collected works to establish
his authorship.

In 1844 another curious twist occurred in Sealsfield's life,
one which proved to bring his literary career to its zenith. Professor
Theodor Mundt discussed him in his Geschichte der Literatur
and in a series of lectures in Berlin, calling him "The Greatest
American Author." The editor of the Boston Daily Advertiser
published an article on 29 March 1844 under this title, summarizing
Mundt's generous assessment of the greatness of Seatsfield, for
so had Mundt understood and written Sealsfield's name.(33)
This article started an international controversy
and search for the author. Some critics thought the campaign to
identify Sealsfield was nothing more than a newspaper hoax, an
April fool's prank or that such an author did not exist. Some
believed that Mundt himself was the unknown writer. No one could
find any books of a Seatsfield in any library. A
Professor Tellkampf, at Columbia University finally produced some
of Sealsfield's books, which he informed the press were equal
to the prose of Goethe.(34) Since no one had
seen him or knew anything about him, the journalists labeled him
"The Great Unknown." One reviewer wrote:
"He must be a curious genius to bury himself in the center
of Europe, and become master of a foreign language before he begins
to write, and then excel the best living writers in that language."(35) The New Orleans Picayune

demanded the establishment of a commission to investigate
whether there was a person named Seatsfield and whether he was
a 'sure enough American when this has been settled, it would
be proper to strike from the list of literary
greats the names of Irving, Cooper, Channing and Prescott, and
to put in their place Seatsfield as the greatest American author.(36)

All of the publicity made Sealsfield into a best-selling author
not only in Germany, but also in England and America, thanks to
the pirated editions, and he remained so until the end of his
life.

Sealsfield remained an American author in every respect except
the language, for his goal was to bring awareness of life in America
to Europe. His novels are entertaining by design, but they are
also a serious contribution to understanding American life, as
Hartmut Steinecke has noted:

The most important recent insight is that Sealsfield [...]
was led by his political views to new themes and social models,
and in the course of depicting them, found his way to new modes
of writing and communication. It was not least his political
conception of the novel as a means of
liberal enlightenment that enabled him to enrich German fiction
by aspects that it had previously lacked.(37)

Sealsfield was by temperament American, and his thinking and
subject matter were American. Even so, some German and Austrian
scholars have made strong efforts to claim him for Biedermeier,(38) but where in that mild, obedient atmosphere
does one find ideas of independence of thought, freedom of movement,
emphasis on self-reliance and promotion of the ideals of democracy?
Biedermeier represents the opposite of American ideals in every
respect. When one considers that Sealsfield spent his early life
in Austria in a monastery, segregating him from a normal lifestyle,
and then lived in America and finally in Switzerland, the question
becomes how and where he could pick up Biedermeier qualities,
which appear contrary to his nature. There could be parallels,
but they would hardly be consciously included. The dominant thrust
of Sealsfield's life and work, his flight for freedom, his book
Austria as it is, and his refusal to return to Austria
show that any Biedermeier traits are strictly accidental and unintended.

Sealsfield lived American, thought American and wrote American
- even in German. All of his books from the time he returned to
Europe deal with America or Mexico. Let me conclude with the assessment
of Ulrich S. Carrington, who captures the enthusiasm for America
found in Sealsfield's writings:

They brim with the zest for life that could be found only
in a new country. They are unabashedly pro-American, and proudly
proclaim that the United States is the Eden of the world and
the Southwest the heart of the garden. In other words, the tales
of Charles Sealsfield capture the spirit, the atmosphere, the
vitality, of the Louisiana-Texas borderland as do few other works,
and capture it accurately.[...]
Charles Sealsfield, citizen of the United States, is an American
not to be forgotten, and his work is worth remembering.(39)

(3) Emil
L. Jordan speculates that when Postl lived in Pennsylvania he
may have come into possession of the papers and passport of a
man named Charles Sealsfield. Ibid., p. 259.

(4) So he
became known in 1844 when American newspapers launched a search
to discover his identity, as will be discussed later. Eduard Castle
entitled his study Der Große Unbekannte. Das Leben von
CharlesSealsfield (Wien: Werner, 1955).

(7) For American
reviews see ibid. and also Karl J. R. Arndt, Charles Sealsfield,
Sämtliche Werke, Vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms Presse,
1972), pp. X-XVI. Unfortunately to date neither Arndt nor anyone
else has compiled a complete collection of the American and British
reviews, a contribution that would be most useful.

(17) Ulrich
S. Carrington associates Sealsfield with such writers as August
Baldwin Longstreet Georgia Scenes), Johnson J. Hooper (Adventures
of Simon Suggs), Thomas Bangs Thorpe (The Hive of the Bee Hunter)
and George W. Harris (Sut Lovingood). They were local colorists,
like Sealsfield, "untrammeled by formal training in writing.
Their concern was not for literary grace, but to preserve on their
pages a reasonably accurate picture of the unique life on the
remote frontier." "Foreword" in Ulrich S. Carrington,
The Making of anAmerican. An Adaptation of Memorable
Tales by Charles Sealsfield" (Dallas: SMU Press, 1974),
p. X.

(19) Robert
E. Spiller, et al, eds. Literary History of the United States:
History (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), p. 680. Ulrich
S. Carrington concurs: "The American Unknown ws first introduced
by the 'editor' to his readers as 'the originator and sole inventor'
of what he called the 'Higher Cultural Novel' or the 'National
Novel.' He would not deal with heroes and heroines in the fashion
of popular writers. For his heroes he had chosen 'The People,'
'The Nation,' 'Mankind and Liberty,' to be depicted faithfully.
His outlook was typically American. In his approach to contemporary
solcial problems he was years ahead of Charles Dickens, and many
more years ahead of the Russian classics." Ulrich S. Carrington,
The Making of an American, p. 14.